Article title Interaction of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Other International Judicial Institutions
Authors
Name of magazine Legal journal «Law of Ukraine» (Ukrainian version)
Issue 4/2018
Сторінки [223-250]
DOI https://doi.org/10.33498/louu-2018-04-232
Annotation

In the context of fragmentation of international law, the mechanisms of interaction between various law and order systems and their judicial institutions become increasingly important. In the context of the European integration, the need arises to comprehend the institutional relations of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the EU) with other international judicial institutions. Unlike the national courts of the Member States with which the Court of Justice of the EU has already established the mechanisms of interaction and cooperation, its interaction with other international judicial institutions remains an open issue in terms of setting up of the international legal practice as well as in terms of its theoretical interpretation. The Court of Justice of the EU is cautious about the practice of other international judicial institutions with the jurisdiction which may relate to the EU competence, since their activities may to some extent pose a threat to the jurisdictional order determined by the constituent treaties. The doctrine of the Court of Justice of the EU regarding maintenance of the autonomy of the EU legal system is limited to the inalterability of the EU powers and its institutions established by the constituent treaties, and a unified interpretation of the EU law norms, and also to this system’s independence from decisions made in other legal systems, including those based on international law. In terms of the EU law, this position is completely prointegrative, but in terms of international law, in some way it limits the Member States’ ability to choose the dispute resolution means granted to them by other international treaties. The EU law does not prohibit recourse to the dispute resolution means other than the EU Court of Justice, but under certain conditions, most of which have been established by the practice of the Court of Justice of the EU. What is fundamental here is the fact that tribunals, arbitration and other judicial institutions may not interpret the EU law. Moreover, if the EU may be a subject in an international agreement under which a court or an arbitration court will operate, the jurisdiction of these institutions should be limited only to the application and interpretation of a certain agreement and may not affect the segregation of powers between the EU institutions, or between the EU and the Member States. In this context, of paramount importance is the practice of the Court of Justice of the EU concerning its relations with the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States, the European Court of Human Rights, ad hoc arbitrations etc.

Keywords European integration; international courts; the Court of Justice of the European Union; the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States
References

List of legal documents

Legislation

1. Konventsiia pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod [Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] vid 4 lystopada 1950 r.: ratyfikovana Zakonom Ukrainy [Ratified by the Law of Ukraine] vid 17 lypnia 1997 r. № 475/97-VR. URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004 (accessed: 15.03.2018) (in Ukrainian).

2. Dogovor o Evropeyskom Soyuze [Treaty on the European Union] (Maastrikht, 7 fevralya 1992 goda). URL: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_029 (accessed: 15.03.2018) (in Russian).

3. Dogovor o funktsionirovanii Evropeyskogo Soyuza [The Agreement on the Functioning of the European Union] <http://eulaw.ru/treaties/tfeu> accessed 15 March 2018 (in Russian).

 

Cases

4. Case 22/70, ‘AETR’ [1971] European Court Reports 263 (in English). 5. Case 104/81, ‘Kupferberg’ [1982] European Court Reports 3641 (in English). 6. Case 283/81, ‘CILFIT’ [1982] European Court Reports 3415 (in English). 7. Case C-286/90, ‘Poulsen’ [1992] European Court Reports I-6019 (in English).

8. Case C-61/94, ‘Commission v. Germany’ [1996] European Court Reports I-3989 (in English). 9. Case T-II5/94, ‘Opel Austria GmbH v Council of the European Union’ [1997] European Court Reports II-43 (in English).

10. Case 185/95, ‘Baustahlgewebe GmbH v. Commission’ [1998] European Court Reports 1-8417 (in English).

11. Case C-7/98, ‘Dieter Krombach v. Andre Bamberski’ [2000] European Court Reports 1-1935 (in English).

12. Case C-37/00, ‘Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd.’ [2002] European Court Reports I-2032 (in English).

13. Case C-60/00, ‘Mary Carpenter v. Secretary of State for the Home Department’ [2002] European Court Reports 1-6279 (in English).

14. Case C-245/02, ‘Anheuser-Busch’ [2004] European Court Reports I-10989 (in English).

15. Case T-274/02, ‘Ritek Corp.’ [2002] European Court Reports II-4305 (in English).

16. Case 459/03, ‘Commission v Ireland’ [2006] European Court Reports І-4635 (in English). 17. Case T-231/04, ‘Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Union’ [2007] European Court Reports II-66 (in English).

18. Case C-347/10, ‘A. Salemnik v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werkenemersverzekeringen’ Reports of Cases <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/ document.jsf?text=&docid=118001&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&oc= first&part=1&cid=422494> accessed 28 March 2018 (in English).

19. C-399/11, ‘Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal’ [2013] European Court Reports 000001 (in English).

20. Opinion 1/91, ‘EFTA’ [1991] European Court Reports I-06079 (in English).

21. Opinion 1/92, ‘EFTA’ [1992] European Court Reports I-2821 (in English).

22. Opinion 2/94, ‘Accession by the Community to the ECHR’ [1996] European Court Reports I-01759 (in English).

23. Opinion 1/00 on Proposed agreement between the European Community and nonMember States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area [2002] Reports of Cases I-03493 (in English).

24. Opinion 1/09, ‘Creation of a unified patent litigation system’ [2011] European Court Reports I-01137 (in English).

25. Opinion 2/13, ‘Accession by the Community to the ECHR’ [1996] Reports of cases <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160882&pageInde= 0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=421449> accessed 28 March 2018 (in English).

26. Eur. Court H.R., Marckx v. Belgium (application no. 6833/74), Judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A, No. 31 (in English).

27. Eur. Court H.R., Pellegrin v. France (application no. 28541/95), Judgment of 8 December 1999 (in English).

28. UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal, MOX plant, Order No. 6, Termination of proceedings, 6 June 2008 <http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/MOX%20Plant%20Order%20 No.%206.pdf> accessed 20 March 2018 (in English).

 

Bibliography

 

Authored books

29. Barents René, The Autonomy of Community Law (Kluwer Law International 2004) (in English).

30. Mykiievych M, Instytutsiine pravo Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu u sferi zovnishnoi polityky i polityky [Institutional law of the European Union in the sphere of external policy and security] (Vydavnychyi tsentr LNU im Ivana Franka, 2005) (in Ukrainian). Edited books

31. De Witte Bruno, ‘A Selfish Court? The Court of Justice and the design of international dispute settlement beyond the European Union’ in Marise Cremona and Anne Thies (eds), The European Court of Justice and external relations law: constitutional challenges (Hart Publishing, 2014) (in English).

 

Journal articles

32. Bodansky Daniel, ‘The OSPAR Arbitration of the MOX Plant Dispute 2008’ <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228214095_The_OSPAR_Arbitration_of_ the_MOX_Plant_Dispute> accessed 28 March 2018 (in English).

33. Cogan Jacob, ‘Competition and Control in International Adjudication’ (2008) 48 Virginia Journal of International Law 411 (in English).

34. Lavranos Nicolaos, ‘On the Need to Regulate Competing Jurisdictions between International Courts and Tribunals’ (2014) 14 EUI Working Paper MWP 8 (in English).

35. Yuval Shany, ‘The First MOX Plant Award: The Need to Harmonize Competing Environmental Regimes and Dispute Settlement Procedures’ [2004] 17(4) Leiden Journal of International Law 815 (in English).

36. Komarova T, ‘Cud Yevropeiskykh Spivtovarystv i natsionalni sudy derzhav-chleniv Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu u stanovlenni intehratsiinoho pravoporiadku’ [‘The Court of Justice of the European Communities and Member-States National Courts in the Development of Integration Legal Order’] (2006) 1 Visnyk Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy 99 (in Ukrainian).

37. Muraviov V, ‘Realizatsiia norm prava yevropeiskoho soiuzu u vnutrishnikh pravoporiadkakh derzhav-chleniv’ [‘Realization of the EU Law Norms in Internal Legal Orders of Member-States’] [2013] 1086(2) Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V N Karazina. Seriia: Mizhnarodni vidnosyny Ekonomika Krainoznavstvo Turyzm 58 (in Ukrainian).

 

Dissertation

38. Odermatt Jed, ‘The European Union as a Global Actor and its Impact on the International Legal Order’ [PhD thesis 2016] (in English).